Netpliance Still Does Not Get It

[ The opinions expressed by authors on Linux Today are their
own. They speak only for themselves and not for Linux Today.
]

By Rip Linton

The i-opener is still causing a stir in the open source and
hacker communities. Netpliance had a plan to market the i-opener
for $99, which by many estimates was a loss of $250 to $300 per
unit, and make their profits from the recurring revenue of
providing Internet service to the units. The Internet service is
priced at $21.95 per month. This type of marketing has worked well
for cellular telephone service providers and could have worked for
Netpliance. However, when someone purchases a cellular telephone
for a special price, the provider requires a contract for service
for some length of time. Netpliance did not have such a contract
for the i-opener.

Before long a hacker discovered the original i-opener could be
modified to run operating systems other than the one supplied by
Netpliance. Windows9x, Linux, or most other operating systems for
x86 processors, could be used on the i-opener. The i-opener became
a cheap pentium class computer complete with 10″ LCD display in a
very small package. Netpliance’s Internet service was not necessary
and the i-opener could be used for things other than Internet
access. Word spread fast, thanks to the Internet, and demand for
the i-opener caused shortages and created back orders.

Many hackers, not wanting to see the units become unavailable,
suggested that Netpliance modify the terms of sale so that they
would make a profit on the i-openers while leaving the units open
to development. It was suggested that Netpliance set a reasonable
price on the units. They then could offer an in-store rebate to
customers who signed a contract for the service or include the
service for a period of time. With either option, Netpliance would
make a profit off every unit sold.

Netpliance created a web page at http://www.netpliance.com/devcorner/
that seemed to indicate a desire to work with the open source
community. Instead of carrying through with the spirit of that
page, Netpliance took a different path. Netpliance responded by
modifying the bios so the system would not boot at all if a hard
drive was present or if the internal operating system was replaced.
They also put epoxy on the bios socket to prevent removal of the
bios. A new Terms of Sale
page showed up at their web site. The new terms only require a 3
month commitment for the Internet service, so the price is still
attractive.

Hackers responded by finding ways to remove the epoxy and flash
the bios back to the original version. Now hackers have written a
program,
qnxflasher, that will flash the bios in place. The epoxy can
stay and the unit can still accept a hard disk.

So far, it appears that Netpliance is putting money into finding
ways to prevent hacking instead of working with the open source
community. A commitment from Netpliance could yield many benefits.
There are a lot of hardware and software developers out there. Many
are dedicated to the open source movement. That is a lot of talent
which could be working to improve the i-opener and to close the
security holes that have already been discovered in it. Instead,
that talent is finding ways to get around the obstacles that
Netpliance seems to want to put in the way. Given the fact that
Netpliance has a limited number of developers, compared with those
on the Internet, it is a war that Netpliance can not win. It
actually becomes a war that will have no winners. The open source
community will win the battles, due to strength of diversity and
numbers. But, we all lose if Netpliance folds and the i-opener goes
away.

The i-opener fills needs in places where there are no other
currently available products. It is more powerful than a palm
device without the expense of a notebook. It takes little space on
a desktop. It offers a great platform for dedicated applications in
addition to the Internet connectivity. Things like an mp3 player,
digital picture frame, or a thin client, all fit the i-opener
nicely. I would hate to see it go away due to poor choices of where
the corporate resources should go.